The "Science is settled" narrative is STOOPID

[Billy_Bob]

The global average pH of the ocean has decreased by 0.11 since the industrial revolution.

And what is the margin of error of your devices and spatial position? The paper you imply listed three points which were near shore and near rivers. IT was not representative of the oceans as a whole and since that paper was published the pH has risen 0.12 indicating that what we have seen was a short acting cycle and within natural variation.

What is the margin of error of *your* devices and spatial position?

Did you take time to read the whole paper and research the instruments in use?

That is not my field of science and I make no pretense of being a chemist, phsyicist, climate scientist, oceanographer or any sort of specialist - nor do I think are most of the participants here. I can read what other scientists write however and form opinions based on that. You like to throw out a lot of technical terms like confetti, which add nothing to the discussion beyond obfuscation.

Funny, neither am I but I don't believe in blind faith as you do, so what is the answer, I say debate it and perform needed experiments by those who do. Ah, but here is the problem those with the power say no. Which then begs the question why not and the answer from them is it's settled. Hah, it's far from settled. Before anyone forces me for money, I have to have the challenge and experiment. And the left on here says no! To which we are where we are here. All anyone has to do is publish the experiment that shows what 120 ppm of co2 does to temperature. Oh and show how ice makes fire warmer!

Editing: oh, and because those in power don't want to debate it, is the reason I have my doubts that they know they're right! They are afraid of being shown their wrong.

Why not have the debate and it validated, pound their chests and say I told you so!

The recent debate held at APS;

"In January, 2014 the American Physical Society (APS) held a one day workshop on climate change and invited six climatologists to participate. A full transcript of the workshop can be found here. The six speakers are all very eminent climate scientists. The discussion was limited to the physical basis of climate change and atmospheric physics was the predominant topic. Three of the speakers lean to the alarmist view. That is they think we are headed toward a climate catastrophe due to man-made Carbon Dioxide. These are Dr. Held, Dr. Collins, and Dr. Santer. The other three lean to the skeptical view and do not think we are headed to a climate catastrophe caused by man-made Carbon Dioxide. These are Dr. Curry, Dr. Lindzen and Dr. Christy.

Short biographies of each of the speakers can be seen here. Someone new to the climate change debate would have a hard time telling the alarmists from the skeptics from this transcript. They were all very professional and they stuck to the science as their host, Dr. Koonin, requested. Climate science and the debate about it are much more complex than the media, the politicians and public know. This workshop drills down to the root of the disagreements and reading it reveals the considerable uncertainty in estimates of both climate sensitivity to CO2 and the effect of natural long term climate cycles."

USMB Thread

Dr Koonin did and excellent job and the alarmists were woefully unprepared for empirical review of their models. All of which were shown failures by empirical evidence.

Original Source

 

[bripat9643]

Nope Vigilante.....it is settled. Gore says its so!!

The ultimate oxymoron...........scientific fascism.

Now, the very scary part of this is that today, it was mentioned that since Hillary Clinton is imploding FASTER than anyone thought, and Lezzy Warren, has even less experience than Capt. "O" the name ALGORE has been thrown back into the DemocRAT presidential ring..... Damn, what a field day I'll have with this mental giant!!!

I read somewhere that algore has already said he isn't going to run.

 

[IanC]

And what is the margin of error of your devices and spatial position? The paper you imply listed three points which were near shore and near rivers. IT was not representative of the oceans as a whole and since that paper was published the pH has risen 0.12 indicating that what we have seen was a short acting cycle and within natural variation.

What is the margin of error of *your* devices and spatial position?

Did you take time to read the whole paper and research the instruments in use?

That is not my field of science and I make no pretense of being a chemist, phsyicist, climate scientist, oceanographer or any sort of specialist - nor do I think are most of the participants here. I can read what other scientists write however and form opinions based on that. You like to throw out a lot of technical terms like confetti, which add nothing to the discussion beyond obfuscation.

Funny, neither am I but I don't believe in blind faith as you do, so what is the answer, I say debate it and perform needed experiments by those who do. Ah, but here is the problem those with the power say no. Which then begs the question why not and the answer from them is it's settled. Hah, it's far from settled. Before anyone forces me for money, I have to have the challenge and experiment. And the left on here says no! To which we are where we are here. All anyone has to do is publish the experiment that shows what 120 ppm of co2 does to temperature. Oh and show how ice makes fire warmer!

Editing: oh, and because those in power don't want to debate it, is the reason I have my doubts that they know they're right! They are afraid of being shown their wrong.

Why not have the debate and it validated, pound their chests and say I told you so!

The recent debate held at APS;

"In January, 2014 the American Physical Society (APS) held a one day workshop on climate change and invited six climatologists to participate. A full transcript of the workshop can be found here. The six speakers are all very eminent climate scientists. The discussion was limited to the physical basis of climate change and atmospheric physics was the predominant topic. Three of the speakers lean to the alarmist view. That is they think we are headed toward a climate catastrophe due to man-made Carbon Dioxide. These are Dr. Held, Dr. Collins, and Dr. Santer. The other three lean to the skeptical view and do not think we are headed to a climate catastrophe caused by man-made Carbon Dioxide. These are Dr. Curry, Dr. Lindzen and Dr. Christy.

Short biographies of each of the speakers can be seen here. Someone new to the climate change debate would have a hard time telling the alarmists from the skeptics from this transcript. They were all very professional and they stuck to the science as their host, Dr. Koonin, requested. Climate science and the debate about it are much more complex than the media, the politicians and public know. This workshop drills down to the root of the disagreements and reading it reveals the considerable uncertainty in estimates of both climate sensitivity to CO2 and the effect of natural long term climate cycles."

USMB Thread

Dr Koonin did and excellent job and the alarmists were woefully unprepared for empirical review of their models. All of which were shown failures by empirical evidence.

Original Source

Let's not forget about the scandal about the 'disappeared' ocean pH data from a few months ago that puts the certainty of ocean pH change into question.

 

[skookerasbil]

still stoopid

 

[Coyote]

The global average pH of the ocean has decreased by 0.11 since the industrial revolution.

And what is the margin of error of your devices and spatial position? The paper you imply listed three points which were near shore and near rivers. IT was not representative of the oceans as a whole and since that paper was published the pH has risen 0.12 indicating that what we have seen was a short acting cycle and within natural variation.

What is the margin of error of *your* devices and spatial position?

Did you take time to read the whole paper and research the instruments in use?

That is not my field of science and I make no pretense of being a chemist, phsyicist, climate scientist, oceanographer or any sort of specialist - nor do I think are most of the participants here. I can read what other scientists write however and form opinions based on that. You like to throw out a lot of technical terms like confetti, which add nothing to the discussion beyond obfuscation.

Being technically precise is the only way the science can resolve the issue. Not understanding the mechanics of the convection cycle, atmospheric cycles or IR bandpass/absorption is the difference between actual predictive forecasts or failure, like we have seen from the current crop of failed models.

What has 120ppm of CO2 increase over 155 years done to our atmosphere? Please provide Data, Method and process used to determine this.

I'm not a scientist in that specialty so no. I'm not going to provide "data, method, and process". I'm happy to discuss it, but you don't seem to be doing that.

 

[Coyote]

The global average pH of the ocean has decreased by 0.11 since the industrial revolution.

And what is the margin of error of your devices and spatial position? The paper you imply listed three points which were near shore and near rivers. IT was not representative of the oceans as a whole and since that paper was published the pH has risen 0.12 indicating that what we have seen was a short acting cycle and within natural variation.

What is the margin of error of *your* devices and spatial position?

Did you take time to read the whole paper and research the instruments in use?

That is not my field of science and I make no pretense of being a chemist, phsyicist, climate scientist, oceanographer or any sort of specialist - nor do I think are most of the participants here. I can read what other scientists write however and form opinions based on that. You like to throw out a lot of technical terms like confetti, which add nothing to the discussion beyond obfuscation.

Funny, neither am I but I don't believe in blind faith as you do, so what is the answer, I say debate it and perform needed experiments by those who do. Ah, but here is the problem those with the power say no. Which then begs the question why not and the answer from them is it's settled. Hah, it's far from settled. Before anyone forces me for money, I have to have the challenge and experiment. And the left on here says no! To which we are where we are here. All anyone has to do is publish the experiment that shows what 120 ppm of co2 does to temperature. Oh and show how ice makes fire warmer!

Editing: oh, and because those in power don't want to debate it, is the reason I have my doubts that they know they're right! They are afraid of being shown their wrong.

Why not have the debate and it validated, pound their chests and say I told you so!

It's kind of like debating evolution. Those who counter it's an unproven theory aren't able to offer an alternative explanation but rather base their position on the inconsistencies they can find in the prevailing theory as if that totally disproves the theory.

 

[jc456]

And what is the margin of error of your devices and spatial position? The paper you imply listed three points which were near shore and near rivers. IT was not representative of the oceans as a whole and since that paper was published the pH has risen 0.12 indicating that what we have seen was a short acting cycle and within natural variation.

What is the margin of error of *your* devices and spatial position?

Did you take time to read the whole paper and research the instruments in use?

That is not my field of science and I make no pretense of being a chemist, phsyicist, climate scientist, oceanographer or any sort of specialist - nor do I think are most of the participants here. I can read what other scientists write however and form opinions based on that. You like to throw out a lot of technical terms like confetti, which add nothing to the discussion beyond obfuscation.

Funny, neither am I but I don't believe in blind faith as you do, so what is the answer, I say debate it and perform needed experiments by those who do. Ah, but here is the problem those with the power say no. Which then begs the question why not and the answer from them is it's settled. Hah, it's far from settled. Before anyone forces me for money, I have to have the challenge and experiment. And the left on here says no! To which we are where we are here. All anyone has to do is publish the experiment that shows what 120 ppm of co2 does to temperature. Oh and show how ice makes fire warmer!

Editing: oh, and because those in power don't want to debate it, is the reason I have my doubts that they know they're right! They are afraid of being shown their wrong.

Why not have the debate and it validated, pound their chests and say I told you so!

It's kind of like debating evolution. Those who counter it's an unproven theory aren't able to offer an alternative explanation but rather base their position on the inconsistencies they can find in the prevailing theory as if that totally disproves the theory.

LOL

 

[Coyote]

Was the flat earth ever a scientific theory?
Was the earth in the center of the universe ever a scientific theory?
What scientific method was used?

 

[jc456]

L

Was the flat earth ever a scientific theory?
Was the earth in the center of the universe ever a scientific theory?
What scientific method was used?

OL

 

[Vigilante]

Was the flat earth ever a scientific theory?
Was the earth in the center of the universe ever a scientific theory?
What scientific method was used?

Do you see ANYTHING in that little meme stating scientific theory, they were all BELIEFS held by the known scientists at that time!... Come on, you can do better then this!

 

[elektra]

Science is never settled, to dictate otherwise is all we need to know.

 

[bripat9643]

And what is the margin of error of your devices and spatial position? The paper you imply listed three points which were near shore and near rivers. IT was not representative of the oceans as a whole and since that paper was published the pH has risen 0.12 indicating that what we have seen was a short acting cycle and within natural variation.

What is the margin of error of *your* devices and spatial position?

Did you take time to read the whole paper and research the instruments in use?

That is not my field of science and I make no pretense of being a chemist, phsyicist, climate scientist, oceanographer or any sort of specialist - nor do I think are most of the participants here. I can read what other scientists write however and form opinions based on that. You like to throw out a lot of technical terms like confetti, which add nothing to the discussion beyond obfuscation.

Funny, neither am I but I don't believe in blind faith as you do, so what is the answer, I say debate it and perform needed experiments by those who do. Ah, but here is the problem those with the power say no. Which then begs the question why not and the answer from them is it's settled. Hah, it's far from settled. Before anyone forces me for money, I have to have the challenge and experiment. And the left on here says no! To which we are where we are here. All anyone has to do is publish the experiment that shows what 120 ppm of co2 does to temperature. Oh and show how ice makes fire warmer!

Editing: oh, and because those in power don't want to debate it, is the reason I have my doubts that they know they're right! They are afraid of being shown their wrong.

Why not have the debate and it validated, pound their chests and say I told you so!

It's kind of like debating evolution. Those who counter it's an unproven theory aren't able to offer an alternative explanation but rather base their position on the inconsistencies they can find in the prevailing theory as if that totally disproves the theory.

Generally inconsistencies do invalidate a theory, but the creationist don't find any real inconsistencies in the theory. What they find is a bunch of strawmen. They claim "if evolution was true then we should see 'X'." However, there's nothing about evolution that implies we should see 'X.'

 

[bripat9643]

Was the flat earth ever a scientific theory?
Was the earth in the center of the universe ever a scientific theory?
What scientific method was used?

By "scientific" what you mean is "was it true." They were the best theories available at the time. That's all that matters.

 

[skookerasbil]

still stoopid

 

[Billy_Bob]

And what is the margin of error of your devices and spatial position? The paper you imply listed three points which were near shore and near rivers. IT was not representative of the oceans as a whole and since that paper was published the pH has risen 0.12 indicating that what we have seen was a short acting cycle and within natural variation.

What is the margin of error of *your* devices and spatial position?

Did you take time to read the whole paper and research the instruments in use?

That is not my field of science and I make no pretense of being a chemist, phsyicist, climate scientist, oceanographer or any sort of specialist - nor do I think are most of the participants here. I can read what other scientists write however and form opinions based on that. You like to throw out a lot of technical terms like confetti, which add nothing to the discussion beyond obfuscation.

Being technically precise is the only way the science can resolve the issue. Not understanding the mechanics of the convection cycle, atmospheric cycles or IR bandpass/absorption is the difference between actual predictive forecasts or failure, like we have seen from the current crop of failed models.

What has 120ppm of CO2 increase over 155 years done to our atmosphere? Please provide Data, Method and process used to determine this.

I'm not a scientist in that specialty so no. I'm not going to provide "data, method, and process". I'm happy to discuss it, but you don't seem to be doing that.

So you debate things from a feel good perspective rather than a fact based perspective. That is the problem with AGW'ers and fear mongers. they do not use facts, they use conjecture and non truths' and expect everyone to believe them.. You are the one who did not come here to debate it, you want religious adherence without basis in fact.

 

[jc456]

What is the margin of error of *your* devices and spatial position?

Did you take time to read the whole paper and research the instruments in use?

That is not my field of science and I make no pretense of being a chemist, phsyicist, climate scientist, oceanographer or any sort of specialist - nor do I think are most of the participants here. I can read what other scientists write however and form opinions based on that. You like to throw out a lot of technical terms like confetti, which add nothing to the discussion beyond obfuscation.

Being technically precise is the only way the science can resolve the issue. Not understanding the mechanics of the convection cycle, atmospheric cycles or IR bandpass/absorption is the difference between actual predictive forecasts or failure, like we have seen from the current crop of failed models.

What has 120ppm of CO2 increase over 155 years done to our atmosphere? Please provide Data, Method and process used to determine this.

I'm not a scientist in that specialty so no. I'm not going to provide "data, method, and process". I'm happy to discuss it, but you don't seem to be doing that.

So you debate things from a feel good perspective rather than a fact based perspective. That is the problem with AGW'ers and fear mongers. they do not use facts, they use conjecture and non truths' and expect everyone to believe them.. You are the one who did not come here to debate it, you want religious adherence without basis in fact.

he is just someone who believes because the left told him he had to. I don't believe for the exact same reason.

Me, I need proof. I'm not a practicing catholic because I need more evidence than what I received to believe. I do however believe in a higher being. Maybe they are alien, maybe spiritual. Not sure. I do wonder how someone invented the things that were invented. Somewhere there was an exchange of knowledge from higher source, at least in my eyes.

 

[Coyote]

What is the margin of error of *your* devices and spatial position?

Did you take time to read the whole paper and research the instruments in use?

That is not my field of science and I make no pretense of being a chemist, phsyicist, climate scientist, oceanographer or any sort of specialist - nor do I think are most of the participants here. I can read what other scientists write however and form opinions based on that. You like to throw out a lot of technical terms like confetti, which add nothing to the discussion beyond obfuscation.

Being technically precise is the only way the science can resolve the issue. Not understanding the mechanics of the convection cycle, atmospheric cycles or IR bandpass/absorption is the difference between actual predictive forecasts or failure, like we have seen from the current crop of failed models.

What has 120ppm of CO2 increase over 155 years done to our atmosphere? Please provide Data, Method and process used to determine this.

I'm not a scientist in that specialty so no. I'm not going to provide "data, method, and process". I'm happy to discuss it, but you don't seem to be doing that.

So you debate things from a feel good perspective rather than a fact based perspective.

No. I debate things from a fact based perspective but I have little respect for someone who's arguments are little more than the throwing out of a lot of technical terms intended to dazzle and/or confuse rather than discuss. I can discuss animal behavior, for example, and rattle off a lot of scientific jargon, technical terms and make myself look really good at the expense of the other person but what is the purpose? One of the complaints often said of scientists is they don't communicate their science well to the general public - on their level.

That is the problem with AGW'ers and fear mongers. they do not use facts, they use conjecture and non truths' and expect everyone to believe them.. You are the one who did not come here to debate it, you want religious adherence without basis in fact.

Actually, it's the problem with you. You want to impress everyone with your ability to rattle off terms and "facts" but are incapable of making the "facts" understandable to the average person. It comes off as either hokey (like you have a grasp of the terms but maybe not the science) or arrogant - you are so far above us "peons" that you can't communicate your position. Take your pick.

 

[Coyote]

Did you take time to read the whole paper and research the instruments in use?

That is not my field of science and I make no pretense of being a chemist, phsyicist, climate scientist, oceanographer or any sort of specialist - nor do I think are most of the participants here. I can read what other scientists write however and form opinions based on that. You like to throw out a lot of technical terms like confetti, which add nothing to the discussion beyond obfuscation.

Being technically precise is the only way the science can resolve the issue. Not understanding the mechanics of the convection cycle, atmospheric cycles or IR bandpass/absorption is the difference between actual predictive forecasts or failure, like we have seen from the current crop of failed models.

What has 120ppm of CO2 increase over 155 years done to our atmosphere? Please provide Data, Method and process used to determine this.

I'm not a scientist in that specialty so no. I'm not going to provide "data, method, and process". I'm happy to discuss it, but you don't seem to be doing that.

So you debate things from a feel good perspective rather than a fact based perspective. That is the problem with AGW'ers and fear mongers. they do not use facts, they use conjecture and non truths' and expect everyone to believe them.. You are the one who did not come here to debate it, you want religious adherence without basis in fact.

he is just someone who believes because the left told him he had to. I don't believe for the exact same reason.

Me, I need proof. I'm not a practicing catholic because I need more evidence than what I received to believe. I do however believe in a higher being. Maybe they are alien, maybe spiritual. Not sure. I do wonder how someone invented the things that were invented. Somewhere there was an exchange of knowledge from higher source, at least in my eyes.

So you're someone who just believes what the right tells you? Thanks for the confirmation

 

[Coyote]

Was the flat earth ever a scientific theory?
Was the earth in the center of the universe ever a scientific theory?
What scientific method was used?

By "scientific" what you mean is "was it true." They were the best theories available at the time. That's all that matters.

Um, no.

They were never "theories" in the sense of being a "scientific theory". The earth being the center of the universe was based on religious belief I think.

 

[mamooth]

When have the global warming cult leaders ever gotten a prediction correct?

Pretty much every time. That's why global warming science has such credibility, because it's been getting everything right for decades running now. Your crazy cult claims otherwise, but your cult is just ignored, on account that it's crazy.

You can scream that's not true, but you're not making any difference by screaming to the choir here. You need to convince the world of science, and you've failed completely in that regard, because all the evidence says you're making everything up. It's not that there's a conspiracy against you. It's that your science just stinks.